Alrighty, given the recent developments from my 'Tentacle Attack' thread, I really couldn't help but bring this topic into the spotlight (partly because I'm confused, but mostly because I'm hoping to find some good answers).

Here are my following questions:

1) Can you combine natural attacks with unarmed strikes?

2) Is there any restriction on what type of natural attacks (claws, wings, bite, etc) you can use in regards to combining them with unarmed strikes?

3) What are the restrictions (if any) on placing natural attacks upon certain limbs? (for example, claws on feet)

I ask these questions because several of my builds pretty much function under a few minor 'assumptions' - namely that you can combine two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes on top of natural attacks.

One such example was my Barbarian build who basically used Beast Totem, Lesser with Animal Fury to gain 2 claws and a bite attack...and then eventually adds them together with 7 unarmed strike attacks he makes using TWF feats and his BAB progression (he is using his feet to make these attacks of course)

Also, while we are on the subject, here are a few 'related' questions:

4) What exactly constitutes an 'extra' attack?

(I ask this question because this debate has often come up with things such as vestigial arms and the 'tentacle discovery', and I was hoping to try and clear it up. Of course, I already imagine that some of you might be thinking that this 'debate' will probably end up being a big waste of time, but before you reach that conclusion, consider the following - if, lets say, an alchemist with his feral mutagen activated makes his 3 attacks [2 claws and 1 bite], and can also combine them with 2 unarmed strikes [namely 2 kick attacks], then it would stand to reason that the alchemist can make a grand total of 5 attacks. Therefore, if 5 attacks is the alchemist's 'maximum' number for attacks, it would stand to reason that any attacks under 5 would not be considered extra. If such is the case, then it would therefore stand that you can use the 'tentacle discovery' to make the following attacks - bite/tentacle/claw/claw...because the number of attacks you make would only equal 4...and because 4 is under the 'maximum' of 5...you therefore did NOT make any extra attacks)

5) Can you combine a two-handed weapon with two-weapon fighting using an unarmed strike (kick) as your off-hand weapon? Also, if you can do this, does your two-handed weapon get 1 and 1/2 strength to damage?

(I ask the above question because it seems relevant in terms of using the 'kick' unarmed strike while your hands are clearly full, namely with a two-handed weapon...which is also very similar to the scenario where your 'hands' are 'full' when making claw attacks).

Just my understanding of the rules below, but if my view is correct you are going to be disappointed.

1) Can you combine natural attacks with unarmed strikes?
If you combine natural attacks with anything they are considered secondary attacks

2) Is there any restriction on what type of natural attacks (claws, wings, bite, etc) you can use in regards to combining them with unarmed strikes?
If you are using the limb that the natural attack is on for a weapon or unarmed strike it isn't available to use a natural weapon on that limb

4) What exactly constitutes an 'extra' attack?
I'm not going to weigh in on this one, but that paragraph reeks of alot of 'wishful thinking'

5) Can you combine a two-handed weapon with two-weapon fighting using an unarmed strike (kick) as your off-hand weapon?
I would say Monk yes, any other unarmed attacker no.... Notice that below the ability to use a kick as part of an unarmed strike is only included in the monk description, I would say this pre-supposes unarmed strike use hands for everyone else.

Improved unarmed strike feat wrote:

You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.

Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

Monk class feature wrote:

A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

Oh trust me, if your conclusions are correct, I am NOT disappointed at all. However, tis important to keep something in mind...

Pathfinder: Ultimate Equipment wrote:

An unarmed strike is an attack such as a punch or a kick where the attacker is not using a weapon to make the attack. A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (Core Rulebook 182). An unarmed strike can’t be disarmed.

Alrighty, given the recent developments from my 'Tentacle Attack' thread, I really couldn't help but bring this topic into the spotlight (partly because I'm confused, but mostly because I'm hoping to find some good answers).

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.-skr

3) What are the restrictions (if any) on placing natural attacks upon certain limbs? (for example, claws on feet)

If you can't conveniently place your unarmed strikes to be out of the way of your natural attacks i can't see why you could conveniently place your natural attacks to be out of the way of your unarmed strikes.

4) What exactly constitutes an 'extra' attack?

Sesemee street counting. You need to keep the method for getting to the number the same: for example, if your maximum in your example is topping out at 5 by using two weapon fighting you have to somehow use two weapon fighting with your tentacle... which you can't do.

5) Can you combine a two-handed weapon with two-weapon fighting using an unarmed strike (kick) as your off-hand weapon?
I would say Monk yes, any other unarmed attacker no.... Notice that below the ability to use a kick as part of an unarmed strike is only included in the monk description, I would say this pre-supposes unarmed strike use hands for everyone else.

Yes. Under the description for generic unarmed strike it says

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

I think it may have worked differently in 3.5, because i used to think that was monk only too.

Sesemee street counting. You need to keep the method for getting to the number the same: for example, if your maximum in your example is topping out at 5 by using two weapon fighting you have to somehow use two weapon fighting with your tentacle... which you can't do.

I'm not gonna lie, that statement makes zero sense. What you seem to be implying is that I am not allowed to 'forgo' an attack, and that whenever I use a 'full-round action', I MUST make every attack I possibly can.

This, of course, is not the case.

Just because my maximum number attacks is 5 doesn't mean that I need to make 5 attacks.

Also, from what the RAW is telling us, both unarmed strikes and natural attacks BOTH seem to be 'limb specific'. For example, can you make a 'punch attack' with the same limb that you used to make a 'claw attack'? The answer is obviously no, and the reason for that is simple: you used the same limb.

There are even magic items that ONLY effect a person's "hand", and we also cannot forget about the infamous 'gauntlet' as well.

I think we can all agree that making an 'unarmed strike' with your 'feet' while wearing a gauntlet won't allow a character to use the gauntlet's damage (for obvious reasons). Again, the rules support this method that unarmed strikes are just as 'limb specific' as natural attacks, which is mainly where this entire argument comes from.

Alrighty, given the recent developments from my 'Tentacle Attack' thread, I really couldn't help but bring this topic into the spotlight (partly because I'm confused, but mostly because I'm hoping to find some good answers).

Here are my following questions:

1) Can you combine natural attacks with unarmed strikes?
If you have 2 claw attacks and +6/+1 Bab, you could do US+6/US+1/Claw+1/Claw+1. The US follow normal bab progression, +6/+1 for example, and the Claw attacks are done as secondaries for Bab-5 and 0.5x Str. The only requirement is that you must do it as a full-attack (full-round) action.

2) Is there any restriction on what type of natural attacks (claws, wings, bite, etc) you can use in regards to combining them with unarmed strikes?
Claw would prevent you from making a US with your hand and vice versa. But you can make US with hands, feet, or your head (and any bodypart if a Monk) so as long as one of those is available, you can make your US.

3) What are the restrictions (if any) on placing natural attacks upon certain limbs? (for example, claws on feet)
Convoluted.

I ask these questions because several of my builds pretty much function under a few minor 'assumptions' - namely that you can combine two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes on top of natural attacks.

One such example was my Barbarian build who basically used Beast Totem, Lesser with Animal Fury to gain 2 claws and a bite attack...and then eventually adds them together with 7 unarmed strike attacks he makes using TWF feats and his BAB progression (he is using his feet to make these attacks of course)
I question the idea of being able to use US as both main-hand and off-hand in a single iteration by default. I've always seen US as a single weapon no mater which limb it's delivered with and that you can only do it as EITHER main-hand OR off-hand in a given iteration. That's what makes Monks special in that they have a special ability that allows them to double-dip their US. But the core point is that you have to have the limb available to use either the US or the natural attack. If you have claws on both your feet, you have to use hands or head for US. If the claws are on both hands, you have to use feet or head. If you have a bite attack, you can only use feet or hands. If you have wings or tail, they don't interfere with hands, feet, or head. So, presuming your Barbarian has high enough Bab for 4 iteratives and the 3 TWF feats, he could wield an axe in his main-hand and fight Axe/US/Axe/US/Axe/US/Axe/Bite/Claw (second claw is occupied by axe). Or, if he has, say, a boot-blade, he could fight US/Boot/US/Boot/US/Boot/US/Bite/Claw/Claw using one foot for the boot blade and the other foot for his US. But a Barb trying to flurry like a Monk only cheapens the Monk.

Also, while we are on the subject, here are a few 'related' questions:

4) What exactly constitutes an 'extra' attack?

(I ask this question because this debate has often come up with things such as vestigial arms and the 'tentacle discovery', and I was hoping to try and clear it up. Of course, I already imagine that some of you might be thinking that this 'debate' will probably end up being a big waste of time, but before you reach that conclusion, consider the following - if, lets say, an alchemist with his feral mutagen activated makes his 3 attacks [2 claws and 1 bite], and can also combine them with 2 unarmed strikes [namely 2 kick attacks], then it would stand to reason that the alchemist can make a grand total of 5 attacks. Therefore, if 5 attacks is the alchemist's 'maximum' number for attacks, it would stand to reason that any attacks under 5 would not be considered extra. If such is the case, then it would stand to reason that the alchemist can make a grand total of 5 attacks. Therefore, if 5 attacks is the alchemist's 'maximum' number for attacks, it would stand to reason that any attacks under 5 would not be considered extra. If such is the case, then it would therefore stand that you can use the 'tentacle discovery' to make the following attacks - bite/tentacle/claw/claw...because the number of attacks you make would only equal 4...and because 4 is under the 'maximum' of 5...you therefore did NOT make any extra attacks)

If you're using ONLY natural attacks, you do it as an attack action (standard action). In the case of having a Bite + 2 claws, you take a standard action to attack with one of those as a primary attack (full bab) and the others as secondary attacks (bab -5) and you still get your move. You can't take US in addition in this case. On the other hand, if you fight as a full-attack action (full-round action), you can use US as your main-hand attack as a kick plus the three natural attacks all as secondary. You still only get one iteration of each natural attack so even if your bab gives you 3 iteratives, you get 3 US attacks as main-hand but still only 2 claws and 1 bite over the entire full-attack action.

5) Can you combine a two-handed weapon with two-weapon fighting using an unarmed strike (kick) as your off-hand weapon? Also, if you can do this, does your two-handed weapon get 1 and 1/2 strength to damage?
Yes.

(I ask the above question because it seems relevant in terms of using the 'kick' unarmed strike while your hands are clearly full, namely with a two-handed weapon...which is also very similar to the scenario where your 'hands' are 'full' when making claw attacks).

I'm not gonna lie, that statement makes zero sense. What you seem to be implying is that I am not allowed to 'forgo' an attack, and that whenever I use a 'full-round action', I MUST make every attack I possibly can.

Let me try to rephrase it then

If you have 5 attacks when two weapon fighting without the extra mutant freakiness, you have to compare that to the number of attacks with the mutant freakiness while two weapon fighting: not without two weapon fighting. Apples to apples.

Quote:

Also, from what the RAW is telling us, both unarmed strikes and natural attacks BOTH seem to be 'limb specific'. For example, can you make a 'punch attack' with the same limb that you used to make a 'claw attack'? The answer is obviously no, and the reason for that is simple: you used the same limb.

RAW unarmed strike is undefined. It can be a headbutt, kick, punch etc.

Quote:

I think we can all agree that making an 'unarmed strike' with your 'feet' while wearing a gauntlet won't allow a character to use the gauntlet's damage (for obvious reasons). Again, the rules support this method that unarmed strikes are just as 'limb specific' as natural attacks, which is mainly where this entire argument comes from.

Right, but you're going outside of raw here. There are specific rules for manufactured weapons and natural attacks. There are no specific rules for unarmed strikes and natural attacks.

There is a mechanism for making offhand attacks. There are no mechanisms for making "off off hand" attacks for things like third limbs or dual wielding daggers and then using spiked armor.

If my dwarf fighter has two axes and a boulder helmet he can two weapon fight with any two of the three: even though all three are free there's simply no mechanics for making an off off hand attack. Without the mechanics for it you can't do it.

From your above example, you seem to suggest that a character is not allowed to TWF with unarmed strikes. If such is the case, I would encourage you to look up the 'Greater Brawler' rage power for the barbarian, which specifically mentions that you CAN TWF with unarmed strikes.

From your above example, you seem to suggest that a character is not allowed to TWF with unarmed strikes. If such is the case, I would encourage you to look up the 'Greater Brawler' rage power for the barbarian, which specifically mentions that you CAN TWF with unarmed strikes.

I suggest you re-read the rage power.

Brawler, Greater: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks. A barbarian must have the brawler rage power to select this rage power.

It only states that when you are making unarmed strike attacks, you're treated as if you have two-weapon fighting. A lose reading may "imply" that it allows you to fight with US as both main-hand and off-hand, but it doesn't say so explicitly. The only thing it definitely allows would be a situation such as what I described; you have an axe in main-hand and you can do Axe/US with as if you had the TWF feat benefits. It, in no way, "specifically mentions that you can TWF with US". It says that you can fight as if you had TWF (even if you don't) when your attack involves use of US.

RAW unarmed strike is undefined. It can be a headbutt, kick, punch etc.

Wow, if that be the case...I guess there's nothing stopping me from 'kicking' with my 'hand' or 'headbutting' with my 'hip' (after all, limbs are CLEARLY undefined by RAW)

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you have 5 attacks when two weapon fighting without the extra mutant freakiness, you have to compare that to the number of attacks with the mutant freakiness while two weapon fighting: not without two weapon fighting.

Again, not making sense. After all, like with any 'two-weapon fighting', I can choose to forgo my offhand strikes entirely. My example for '5' attacks was to describe my 'maximum' number of potential attacks (which then implies that I can only make an 'extra attack' if I somehow attempt to make a 6th attack). Even a PC wielding a two-handed weapon at level 1 has a maximum number of 2 attacks (1 from the weapon, and another from an off-hand 'kick' if they so desired, but as always, such is not normally the case...but that doesn't change the fact that the maximum number is still 2).

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If my dwarf fighter has two axes and a boulder helmet he can two weapon fight with any two of the three: even though all three are free there's simply no mechanics for making an off off hand attack. Without the mechanics for it you can't do it.

In this example, you are using 3 manufactured weapons (which are obviously limited by your BAB progression). Natural weapons suffer from no such limitation (however, unarmed strikes do). However, in none of my examples have I ever used unarmed strikes to exceed the normal number of attacks that a character of my BAB progression can make.

Brawler, Greater: While raging, the barbarian is treated as if she has Two-Weapon Fighting when making unarmed strike attacks. A barbarian must have the brawler rage power to select this rage power.

It only states that when you are making unarmed strike attacks, you're treated as if you have two-weapon fighting. A lose reading may "imply" that it allows you to fight with US as both main-hand and off-hand, but it doesn't say so explicitly. The only thing it definitely allows would be a situation such as what I described; you have an axe in main-hand and you can do Axe/US with as if you had the TWF feat benefits. It, in no way, "specifically mentions that you can TWF with US". It says that you can fight as if you had TWF (even if you don't) when your attack involves use of US.

You do realize that you are REALLY stretching the interpretation there (and trust me, I wouldn't have suggested the rage power if I didn't already know what it did).

Note that it says 'when making unarmed strike attacks'...not 'when making unarmed strikes with manufactured weapons'.

The whole argument of 'doesn't explicitly say so' really is a rather weak position (it's almost like saying that if a character becomes unconscious, they don't fall prone...why? because it doesn't 'explicitly say so'...or...if you want to use your unarmed strike to headbutt someone...but instead you use your foot to hit them instead...why?...well because the rules didn't 'explicitly say' that I couldn't headbutt someone with my foot)

Just to reiterate, nothing has changed with the rules combining Manufactured(or Unarmed Strikes) and Natural Attacks.

Nothing.

lol, sorry buddy...I just picture a little goblin holding up a sign and screaming "NOTHING HAS CHANGED!" and is just frantically waving it around in the background while peps continue to debate the subject.

Wow, if that be the case...I guess there's nothing stopping me from 'kicking' with my 'hand' or 'headbutting' with my 'hip' (after all, limbs are CLEARLY undefined by RAW)

There is no "kick" attack. There is an unarmed strike attack.

Quote:

Again, not making sense.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You need to differentiate between "that doesn't make sense" and " I don't agree with you". You clearly DO understand me. You're attempting to find another loophole through the developers statements now that he has clearly and repeatedly closed the last loophole in the rules you were trying to use.

Your loophole is to compare the number of attacks you get by method A with the mutant freak to the number of attacks you get by method B with the the baseline assumption of a bisymmetrical bidped. Its comparing apples to oranges.

Quote:

Even a PC wielding a two-handed weapon at level 1 has a maximum number of 2 attacks (1 from the weapon, and another from an off-hand 'kick' if they so desired, but as always, such is not normally the case...but that doesn't change the fact that the maximum number is still 2).

The maximum number of the normal while two weapon fighting is two

You compare that two the maximum number of the mutant freak while two weapon fighting ... you want that to be three.

OR you compare it to The maximum number of the normal while not two weapon fighting is one. You want the mutant freaks number while not two weapon fighting to be 2.

Quote:

In this example, you are using 3 manufactured weapons (which are obviously limited by your BAB progression).

They are not. If my BAB is +0 i still get two attacks using two weapon fighting. The only thing preventing me from three weapon fighting is the lack of a mechanism for it. Thats why you can two weapon fight with your unarmed strikes but you can't three four or 5 weapon fight. You can elbow the orc in the head. You can punch the orc in the head. You can kick the orc in the head.. but you can't do all three in the same round with a +0 bab.

Natural weapons suffer from no such limitation (however, unarmed strikes do). However, in none of my examples have I ever used unarmed strikes to exceed the normal number of attacks that a character of my BAB progression can make.

Just to reiterate, nothing has changed with the rules combining Manufactured(or Unarmed Strikes) and Natural Attacks.

Nothing.

Ok BBT, seriously, that's not helpful. The OP is asking for clarification of the rules, not whether something has changed. Your posts are not giving any information whatsoever. Please refrain from them.

ON TOPIC: There is absolutely no reason that an unarmed strike needs to be with any specific limb, UNLESS you're already using that limb for another attack (natural or otherwise) in which case you cannot also unarmed strike with it in that round. If you are trying to maximize the number of attacks by combining unarmed strikes and natural attacks, here's how I would see it happening.

The third and last options represent the maximum number of attacks you can get in one round with your current setup. The only way you can do that, though, is by using limbs OTHER than your arms (which have the claw attacks) and head (which has the gore and bite attacks). You can therefore use your feet and knees (kicks or knee-bashes) for your three iterative UAS attacks. Using your UAS attacks is no different from taking iterative attacks with spiked armor. In fact, you can switch off between UAS and spiked armor interchangeably (see #2 and #3). (With the exception that you can only make one off-hand attack with armor spikes, quoted here):

Armor spikes wrote:

...(You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)...

That's how it's written. There's no reason to think you can't do everything listed above except for vague comments by devs which have not made it into a FAQ or an official update.

The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mount, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.

Emphasis his.

He explained that this is on Page 182 of the CRB, but I think I just suck at reading that page.

Gee, I guess all those magic items that specifically effect a 'limb' for an unarmed strike (such as Forge Fist Amulet and Deliquescent Gloves) must apply to feet too, since you are apparently attempting to claim that unarmed strikes have no application to what 'limb' is being used.

Make sense? Nope.

I do understand what you're saying in regards to this topic of course, but that doesn't change the fact that an 'unarmed strike' uses a specific 'limb'.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You need to differentiate between "that doesn't make sense" and " I don't agree with you".

You do understand that there is a world of difference between 'your explanation doesn't make sense' as opposed to 'I just don't like what you're saying', right?

A BAB +0 character with 3 natural attacks can obviously make 3 natural attacks (which is rather ironic considering his max number of attacks is 2, but he is still able to make 3 attakcs...why?...because natural attacks are not limited by what the BAB allows).

Moreover, such a character also has the option of using either '1' or '2' other attacks on top of his natural attacks as well (he is not required to make either of these attacks mind you, but he certainly cannot exceed beyond them to make a '3rd' attack since that would violate the max that his BAB allows). Therefore, if do your 'Sesemee street counting'...what is our max number of potential attacks?

Well, it is either '4' (if we don't choose to TWF) or 5 (if we DO choose to TWF). That being said, any attack beyond these maximums obviously qualifies as an 'extra attack' that the character could not make.

Just to reiterate, nothing has changed with the rules combining Manufactured(or Unarmed Strikes) and Natural Attacks.

Nothing.

Ok BBT, seriously, that's not helpful. The OP is asking for clarification of the rules, not whether something has changed. Your posts are not giving any information whatsoever. Please refrain from them.

ON TOPIC: There is absolutely no reason that an unarmed strike needs to be with any specific limb, UNLESS you're already using that limb for another attack (natural or otherwise) in which case you cannot also unarmed strike with it in that round. If you are trying to maximize the number of attacks by combining unarmed strikes and natural attacks, here's how I would see it happening.

The third and last options represent the maximum number of attacks you can get in one round with your current setup. The only way you can do that, though, is by using limbs OTHER than your arms (which have the claw attacks) and head (which has the gore and bite attacks). You can therefore use your feet and knees (kicks or knee-bashes) for your three iterative UAS attacks. Using your UAS attacks is no different from taking iterative attacks with spiked armor. In fact, you can switch off between UAS and spiked armor interchangeably (see #2 and #3). (With the exception that you can only make one off-hand attack with armor spikes, quoted here):...

Number 5 is pretty much what I was doing all along with my example barbarian (though sadly I can't get the 'gore attack'...as it basically goes against getting the beast totem rage power)

Although I have to say...I think your calculations for the natural attacks are incorrect....as the penalties for TWF don't stack on top of natural attacks (you only just apply the -5 penalty)

You do understand that there is a world of difference between 'your explanation doesn't make sense' as opposed to 'I just don't like what you're saying', right?

In your world there is not.

Quote:

A BAB +0 character with 3 natural attacks can obviously make 3 natural attacks (which is rather ironic considering his max number of attacks is 2, but he is still able to make 3 attakcs...why?...because natural attacks are not limited by what the BAB allows).

Because his maximum number of attacks when Stabbing with a dagger is 1. If your mutant freak stabs with a dagger he is limited to one attack.

His maximum number of attacks when two weapon fighting is 2. If your mutatn freak uses two weapon fighting his maximum number of attacks is two.

His maximum number of attacks when using claw claw bite is 3. If your mutant freak uses claw claw bite his maximum number of attacks is 3.

You cannot simply sever the number from the conditions that got it there.

You do understand that there is a world of difference between 'your explanation doesn't make sense' as opposed to 'I just don't like what you're saying', right?

In your world there is not.

Quote:

A BAB +0 character with 3 natural attacks can obviously make 3 natural attacks (which is rather ironic considering his max number of attacks is 2, but he is still able to make 3 attakcs...why?...because natural attacks are not limited by what the BAB allows).

Because his maximum number of attacks when Stabbing with a dagger is 1. If your mutant freak stabs with a dagger he is limited to one attack. Why couldn't he stab with a dagger, then use his other hand to claw and his mouth to bite? He's not in any way LIMITED to one attack

His maximum number of attacks when two weapon fighting is 2. If your mutatn freak uses two weapon fighting his maximum number of attacks is two. Add in the bite, and again the max is 3

His maximum number of attacks when using claw claw bite is 3. If your mutant freak uses claw claw bite his maximum number of attacks is 3.
This one I agree with. (but see below)

You cannot simply sever the number from the conditions that got it there.

)

However, if his "mutant freak" (I really don't like that term, BTW) decides to use BOTH two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes AND his natural attacks, he could get up to FIVE attacks (two unarmed with kicks, then his three naturals as normal). This means that the tentacle could be substituted for one of those unarmed strikes. Seems totally fair to me. The requirement here is that you have improved unarmed strike and a tentacle, be willing to forego one of those unarmed strikes for a tentacle attack, and be okay with taking a -5 to your two claws, your bite, AND your tentacle attack.

Now, this brings up an interesting point. If this character decides NOT to use Two-Weapon Fighting, and wants to make tentacle/claw/claw/bite as his full attack action, does the tentacle attack take a -5 penalty because it's a natural attack? I would argue yes, you're substituting a natural attack in place of your normal iterative attack, which means you ARE using iterative attacks, which makes all natural attacks take a -5 penalty. Thus, you're still taking a huge penalty to attack bonus to switch out an unarmed strike for a tentacle. This seems completely fair to me.

Just to reiterate, nothing has changed with the rules combining Manufactured(or Unarmed Strikes) and Natural Attacks.

Nothing.

Ok BBT, seriously, that's not helpful. The OP is asking for clarification of the rules, not whether something has changed. Your posts are not giving any information whatsoever. Please refrain from them.

ON TOPIC: There is absolutely no reason that an unarmed strike needs to be with any specific limb, UNLESS you're already using that limb for another attack (natural or otherwise) in which case you cannot also unarmed strike with it in that round. If you are trying to maximize the number of attacks by combining unarmed strikes and natural attacks, here's how I would see it happening.

The third and last options represent the maximum number of attacks you can get in one round with your current setup. The only way you can do that, though, is by using limbs OTHER than your arms (which have the claw attacks) and head (which has the gore and bite attacks). You can therefore use your feet and knees (kicks or knee-bashes) for your three iterative UAS attacks. Using your UAS attacks is no different from taking iterative attacks with spiked armor. In fact, you can switch off between UAS and spiked armor interchangeably (see #2 and #3). (With the exception that you can only make one off-hand attack with

However, if his "mutant freak" (I really don't like that term, BTW) decides to use BOTH two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes AND his natural attacks, he could get up to FIVE attacks (two unarmed with kicks, then his three naturals as normal)

But Doc Oc is gaining an extra attack. He normally makes 4, you have him at 5.

That extra attack comes from either

Two weapon fighting

OR

The tentacle.

It can't come from the tentacle because of the discovery specific rules on it. It can't come from two weapon fighting because you can't two weapon fight with a tentacle.

Thats IF you can even combine unarmed attacks and natural weapons. There's no rule specifically saying you can, and the dev said you can't.

Of course. But they become secondary attacks (at BAB -5, and dealing 1/2 Str damage)

Duskblade wrote:

2) Is there any restriction on what type of natural attacks (claws, wings, bite, etc) you can use in regards to combining them with unarmed strikes?

Of course not. Unarmed Strikes can be with literally any peice of your body, from a punch to a kick to a headbutt to an elbow, knee, butt whomp, belly slam, dick slang, chin chisel, neck whip, blinking really hard against their skin so your eyelids pinch them...

The point is you have an unlimited number of unarmed strikes on your body, so you can't possibly have natural weapons occupying all of those "slots."

Duskblade wrote:

3) What are the restrictions (if any) on placing natural attacks upon certain limbs? (for example, claws on feet)

I was under the impression that it was claws on hands, gore on head, bite on face, tail whip on, well, tail, talons/rake/hooves on feet, and tentacle is a part in and of itself. Slams I think default to arms, but really should be any body part, like an unarmed attack. I have absolutely no rules backing for this, however. I'm pretty sure RAW is silent on the issue.

Duskblade wrote:

namely that you can combine two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes on top of natural attacks.

You can totally do that.

Duskblade wrote:

One such example was my Barbarian build who basically used Beast Totem, Lesser with Animal Fury to gain 2 claws and a bite attack...and then eventually adds them together with 7 unarmed strike attacks he makes using TWF feats and his BAB progression (he is using his feet to make these attacks of course)

Don't stop there--can't another power get you a gore? And the spirit wisps slam for you...

Duskblade wrote:

4) What exactly constitutes an 'extra' attack?

Extra attacks are those beyond the base rules. If you are using a weapon or unarmed strikes, any attack beyond those granted by BAB are "extra." So, two weapon fighting grants extra attacks, any secondary natural weapons are extra, Rapid Shot gives you an extra attack, etc.

Here's the best and clearest way to look at it. You can use your Tentacle attack plus grab or you can use your other attacks. That's it. It can never be used as a part of another attack routine. It's on its own or nothing.

Duskblade wrote:

5) Can you combine a two-handed weapon with two-weapon fighting using an unarmed strike (kick) as your off-hand weapon?

Absolutely.

Duskblade wrote:

Also, if you can do this, does your two-handed weapon get 1 and 1/2 strength to damage?

Respectfully, even if that was the original intent of how IUS and natural attacks were supposed to interact, I'd say it fell pretty short of the goal. Barring claws, most natural attacks don't even conflict with "regular limbs" used to attack at all (Bite, Gore, Tentacle, Wings, Tail...). Is it "more intended" for a player to use IUS (punch) with Bite/Tail than IUS (kick) with claw/claw?

The system is built assuming the PCs are normal PC-race humanoids, not freaks. Deviating from that is going to deviate from the game's default assumptions. That's what happens when you have a living game system that continues to publish options that potentially bend or break all of the core rules... especially when you combine them together.

Just because you can build something with the rules doesn't mean you should build it.

And yes, I think "let me if I can break the normal limit to how many attacks I can make per round at level 1" is attempting to abuse the system.

max attacks is 4 (Also, keep in mind that while SKR said that this wasn't the intent, and he certainly doesn't approve of it, it doesn't change the fact that you CAN do this)

Therefore, if you supplement the tentacle attack for your unarmed strike, you get this sequence:

Claw/Claw/Bite/Tentacle

max attacks is 4 (again, nothing extra)

What's funny is, assuming we stick by substitution rules, you can also use vestigial arms to make 2 claw attack as well (once your BAB reaches +11). The reason for this is actually very simple, since the Doc Oc attack sequence will look something like this...

Max attacks equals 6, and once you do substitution for claws and tentacle, you get this:

Claw/Claw/Bite/Tentacle/Claw/Claw

Max attacks again equal 6.

Now, keep in mind that I still don't totally agree that you 'need' to wait for BAB +11 in order to use the claw attacks on vestigial arms, but from what I understand from the restrictions thus far, this method 'clearly' does not violate the 'no extra attacks' clause from both tentacle and vestigial arms discoveries.

max attacks is 4 (Also, keep in mind that while SKR said that this wasn't the intent, and he certainly doesn't approve of it, it doesn't change the fact that you CAN do this)

Therefore, if you supplement the tentacle attack for your unarmed strike, you get this sequence:

Claw/Claw/Bite/Tentacle

max attacks is 4 (again, nothing extra)

What's funny is, assuming we stick by substitution rules, you can also use vestigial arms to make 2 claw attack as well (once your BAB reaches +11). The reason for this is actually very simple, since the Doc Oc attack sequence will look something like this...

Max attacks equals 6, and once you do substitution for claws and tentacle, you get this:

Claw/Claw/Bite/Tentacle/Claw/Claw

Max attacks again equal 6.

Now, keep in mind that I still don't totally agree that you 'need' to wait for BAB +11 in order to use the claw attacks on vestigial arms, but from what I understand from the restrictions thus far, this method 'clearly' does not violate the 'no extra attacks' clause from both tentacle and vestigial arms discoveries.

I totally agree with Duskblade on this interpretation. This is how the rules are written. Just putting my two cents in.

IF you allow unarmed attacks and natural weapons to go together then yes. I didn't object to four i objected to five.

Quote:

What's funny is, assuming we stick by substitution rules, you can also use vestigial arms to make 2 claw attack as well (once your BAB reaches +11). The reason for this is actually very simple, since the Doc Oc attack sequence will look something like this...

IF you allow unarmed attacks and natural weapons to go together then yes. I didn't object to four i objected to five.

Quote:

What's funny is, assuming we stick by substitution rules, you can also use vestigial arms to make 2 claw attack as well (once your BAB reaches +11). The reason for this is actually very simple, since the Doc Oc attack sequence will look something like this...

IF you allow unarmed attacks and natural weapons to go together then yes.

I guess I just don't understand where the IFs are coming from. There is NOTHING in the rules that says they can't go together. Unarmed strikes are treated exactly the same as weapon attacks, as long as you have Improved Unarmed Strike. You can combine natural weapons with weapon attacks, so you can combine them with unarmed strikes. QED.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.-skr

Its been linkified a few times up thread if you think there's something to be gained from the context.

I've always done unarmed and natural attack combo's the same way as you, considering it a manufactured weapon. Considering some of the insanity its being put to as well as SKR's statement I'm strongly considering revising my position.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.-skr

Its been linkified a few times up thread if you think there's something to be gained from the context.

I've always done unarmed and natural attack combo's the same way as you, considering it a manufactured weapon. Considering some of the insanity its being put to as well as SKR's statement I'm strongly considering revising my position.

I totally agree with you that SKR's comment makes you think about it, but there hasn't been an official FAQ or rules change yet, that's the point I'm making. It's really obvious if you read the rules that unarmed and naturals can be combined, and until there's something official saying otherwise there really isn't much debate to be made on that point.

The real debate here is whether substituting a tentacle attack for an iterative attack when you're already doing other natural attacks should be allowed. I say yes, by the way the rules are written, but this one at least has some ambiguity.

I totally agree with Duskblade on this interpretation. This is how the rules are written. Just putting my two cents in.

I totally disagree, however.

You cannot just insert the tentacle attack like that into your other attack sequence, nor can you calculate the maximum number of attacks your capable of via all sorts of features and feats and whatnot before deciding what an "extra" attack is.

The Alchemist's Tentacle must be used on its own or not at all. That is it. You absolutely cannot use it together with other attacks.

As I said a few posts above, extra attacks are those beyond the base rules. If you are using a weapon or unarmed strikes, any attack beyond those granted by BAB are "extra." So, two weapon fighting grants extra attacks, any secondary natural weapons are extra, Rapid Shot gives you an extra attack, etc.

The real debate here is whether substituting a tentacle attack for an iterative attack when you're already doing other natural attacks should be allowed. I say yes, by the way the rules are written, but this one at least has some ambiguity.

I don't see any debate about that.

What i objected to was some unholy amalgamation of two weapon fighting , natural attacks, unarmed strikes, and the tentacle. I insisted on an apple to apple comparison for Doc Oc to determine if there was an extra attack being gained somewhere: and that meant a non two weapon fighting Normie vs Doc Oc if Doc Oc wasn't two weapon fighting.

Cartmanblack wrote:

I totally agree with you that SKR's comment makes you think about it, but there hasn't been an official FAQ or rules change yet, that's the point I'm making.

I've always thought it was slightly ambiguous, so a dev saying so is really more of a clarification to me than a change. Believe me, I'll open a torch and pitchfork emporium if i think the devs have something wrong. (stealth, scent, flurry of blows, and the acknowledged error that prevents ride by attack from working by raw come to mind)